HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5122/2020

Ramgopal Son Of Ramchandra, Aged About 41 Years, Resident

Of Village Jethana, Tehsil Pisangan Police Thana Mangaliyawas,

District Ajmer (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner/Plaintiff

Versus

1.

Ram Lal Son Of Lalaram, Aged About 70 Years, Resident

Of Village Jethana, Police Thana Mangaliyawas, Tehsil

Pisangan, District Ajmer (Rajasthan).

2.

Ramniwas Son Of Ram Lal, Aged About 45 Years,

Resident Of Village Jethana, Police Thana Mangaliyawas,

Tehsil Pisangan, District Ajmer (Rajasthan).

3.

Manbhar Wife Of Ramniwas, Aged About 43 Years,

Resident Of Village Jethana, Police Thana Mangaliyawas,

Tehsil Pisangan, District Ajmer (Rajasthan).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Vijay Choudhary

For Respondent(s)

:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Order

16/08/2022

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India has has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff assailing the

legality and validity of the judgment dated 08.01.2020 passed by

the learned Additional District Judge, Camp Nasirabad, Ajmer in

Civil Appeal No.09/2019, CIS No.82/2019 dismissing the appeal

preferred by him against the order dated 17.07.2019 passed by

the learned Civil Judge, Nasirabad, Ajmer in Civil Miscellaneous

(2 of 3)

[CW-5122/2020]

Case No.3/2019 whereby, an application filed by the petitioner

under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC was partly allowed.

The facts in brief are that the petitioner filed a suit for

mandatory and permanent injunction praying therein that the

respondents/defendants may be directed to open the lock put by

them on the subject property and its possession may be restored

to him. The temporary injunction application filed by the petitioner

along with the suit was partly allowed by the learned trial Court

vide its order dated 17.07.2019 whereby, the parties were

directed to maintain status quo qua the subject property. The

findings have been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court vide its

judgment dated 08.01.2020.

Assailing the order impugned, learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that learned Courts below erred in not

allowing his application in toto. He submitted that at least, he

should have been permitted to take out his documents and other

articles from the subject property. He, therefore, prayed that the

writ petition be allowed, the order dated 08.01.2020 be quashed

and set aside and the application filed by him under Order 39 Rule

1 & 2 be allowed in toto.

Heard. Considered.

The learned trial Court has passed the order dated

17.07.2019 assigning cogent reasons based on material on record

which have been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court.

Indisputably, in view of averments made in the plaint and the

application for temporary injunction wherein, the petitioner has

claimed restoration of possession, he was not in possession on the

subject property on the day the suit was filed. It is trite law that

for grant of mandatory injunction by way of an interim relief, the

(3 of 3)

[CW-5122/2020]

petitioner is required to establish very strong prima-facie case

which, in the present case, is lacking. In view thereof, in the

considered opinion of this Court, the learned Court did not err in

not allowing the application in toto and directing restoration of

possession by way of mandatory temporary injunction.

Indisputably, the agreement to sell under which the petitioner is

claiming his possession is unregistered which is compulsarily

registerable after the amendment w.e.f. 09.09.1989 brought by

Registration (Rajasthan Amendment) Act, 1989.

Since, the judgment dated 08.01.2020 does not suffer from

any perversity or patent jurisdictional error so as to warrant

interference of this Court in concurrent findings of fact recorded by

the learned Courts and therefore, this writ petition is dism